green power for electric cars report 08-02-10

7/31/2019 Green Power for Electric Cars Report 08-02-10

1/86

Green Power for Electric Cars

Development of policy recommendations toharvest the potential of electric vehicles

ReportDelf t , January 2010

Author(s):Bettina KampmanCor Leguij tDorien BenninkLonneke WieldersXander Rij keeAb de Buck

Willem Braat


2/86

1 January 2010 4.037.1 Green Power for Elect ri c Cars

Publicat ion Data

Bibl iographical data:

Bett ina Kampman, Cor Leguij t , Dorien Bennink, Lonneke Wielders, Xander Rij kee, Ab de Buck,

Wil lem Braat

Green Power for Electric Cars

Development of policy recommendati ons to harvest the potenti al of electr ic vehicles

Delft, CE Delft, January 2010

Electric Vehicles / Policy / Measures / Policy instruments / Power supply / Effects

Publication number: 10.4037.11

CE-publications are available from www.ce.nl.

Commissioned by: Transport & Envir onment , Friends of the Eart h Europe and Greenpeace

European Unit.

Further information on t his study can be obtained fr om the contact person, Bett ina Kampman.

Friends of the Earth Europe and Transport & Environment gratef ully acknowledge fi nancial

support fr om the European Commission's DG Envir onment and the Oak Foundati on. Sole

responsibil it y for content lies with the authors of t he report . The European Commission and

the Oak Foundati on cannot be held responsible f or any fur ther use that may be made of the

information contained t herein.

copyr ight , CE Delf t , Delft .

CE Delft is an independent research and consultancy organisation specialised in

developing str uctur al and innovati ve soluti ons to environmental pr oblems.

CE Delfts solutions are characterised in being politically feasible, technologically

sound, economically prudent and socially equit able.

Committ ed to t he Environment

CE Delft
http://www.ce.nl/http://www.ce.nl/


3/86


Contents

Summary 41 Introduction 81.1 Background 81.2 Aim and scope of this study 91.3 This report 92 Relevant policy background 102.1 Introduction 103 Electr if ication of road t ransport 143.1 Introduction 143.2 Technical status and expectations 143.3 CO2 emissions of elect ri c vehicles 153.4 Potential eff ects on the t ransport sector 213.5 Scenarios for elect ri f icat ion of road t ransport 223.6 Potent ial indirect effects in the sector 263.7 Effects of elect ric vehicles on oil and biofuel consumption 273.8 When wil l the batteries be charged? 293.9 Conclusions: Elect ri f icat ion of road t ransport 304 Effects of elect ri c cars on the European power supply sector 324.1 Introduction 324.2 Developments in the EU electricit y production sector 334.3

Flexibil it y of power supply, peak load and base load capacit y 36

4.4 Renewable energy and f luct uations 394.5 Demand-side management: Potenti al use of elect ric vehicles

to store energy 404.6 Conclusions: expected impact on the EU elect ri cit y sector 415 How can green opportunit ies be harvested? 445.1 Introduction 445.2 Effects of road transport electrification on present policy goals and

instruments 455.3 Potential policy measures for green electri c t ransport 485.4 Achieving eff ecti ve demand-side management wit h vehicle batt eries 535.5 Metering: a prerequisite for eff ecti ve policies? 535.6 Pros and cons of dif ferent policy inst ruments 545.7 Policy instrument s: conclusions 546 Conclusions and recommendat ions 566.1 General conclusions 566.2 Effects under current policies 566.3 Recommendations 59

References 62


4/86


Annex A Case study 1: Germany 64A.1 Current elect ricit y generati on and developments unti l 2020 64A.2 Effects of elect ric vehicles on power supply 67

Annex B Case study 2: France 72B.1 Current elect ricit y generati on and developments unti l 2020 72B.2 Effects of elect ric vehicles on power supply 75

Annex C Case study 3: Uni ted Kingdom 80C.1 Current elect ricit y generati on and developments unti l 2020 80C.2 Effects of elect ric vehicles on power supply 83


5/86


Summary

IntroductionContrary to the trends in most other sectors, greenhouse gas emissions of thet ransport sector are st il l increasing, and are predicted to grow further in t he

coming years, at current policies. As there is no simple solution to thechallenge of achieving significant CO2 reductions in transport, it has becomeclear t hat a large range of ef fi cient and effective CO2 reduction measures willhave to be taken.

In the coming decades, elect ric and plug-in hybri d vehicles could play asignificant role in this move towards sustainable transport. If these vehiclesrun on renewable electricity, they could substantially cut CO2 emissions andimprove local air quali ty.

Electric vehicles might even help to make the electricity sector moresustainable, if the batteries in the vehicles could be used to manage the

variable output of an increasing share of wind and solar-based powergeneration. However, t he extent to which t hese advantages can be harvestedunder current policies is open to quest ion.

T&E, Friends of the Eart h Europe and Greenpeace European Unit havetherefore j ointl y commissioned this study to look into how the full potential ofelectric cars can be realised. The study aims to analyse the potential impact ofthe electrification of road transport on EU power production and to developpolicy recommendations to ensure that this development will lead to thegrowth of renewable electricity in Europe.

Electr if icat ion of road t ransportElectric vehicles (EVs) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) provide verypromising opportunities for the future development of a sustainable transportsector. However, many quest ions regarding their potent ial share in t he carfleet, their energy efficiency, charging patterns, annual mileage, cost and costst ructure have not yet been answered.

Compared t o internal combust ion engine t echnology (ICE), batt ery elect ricdrive trains have a number of benefits for the transport sector, such as: The potential t o use a large range of energy sources, including all types of

renewable energy, in combination with high energy efficiency. The potenti al f or sustainable and carbon neutral (CO2-free) mobilit y if

powered by renewable energy sources. Less or no air pollut ion (depending on the type of power product ion) and

lower noise levels.

The well-to-wheel environmental impact of EVs and PHEVs is largelydetermined by the t ype of electri city production used to charge the bat teries.If elect ricit y is produced from lignite or coal, well-t o-wheel CO2 emissions aretypically higher than or equal to the emissions of a comparable ICE car. Whenthe electricity comes from gas-fired power plants, emissions are significantlylower. Elect ricit y f rom renewable sources, such as wind, solar or hydro energy,would result in zero CO2 emissions per kilometre.


6/86


In order to assess the potential impact of these vehicles on the electricitysector, three scenarios were developed for 2020. Even though some of thesescenarios were clearly quite ambitious (with up to 31 million EVs and PHEVs inthe EU-27), t he addit ional energy demand from t hese vehicles wil l remainlimited in t he coming decade compared t o the current electri city demand: l essthan 0.3%of current consumption in the moderate scenario, and 2.9%and 2.6%in t he fast and ult ra-fast uptake scenarios. Demand may, of course, increasefurt her after 2020, depending on the success of t his technology.

Effects on the EU power supply sectorThe effects of these scenarios have been analysed on a general level for theEU power sector, and more specifically for three case studies: France,Germany, and the UK. It was concluded that t he extra power demand in t hesescenarios would be met by existing power plants. The exact kind of electricityproduced to meet t his demand would depend on the availabil it y, f lexibili t yand marginal cost of the power production sources at any given moment intime.

When vehicle batteries are charged in base load hours, i.e., at night,coal/ lignit e and nuclear wil l be in a st rong posit ion to meet this addit ional

demand. For extra demand in peak hours, an increase in gas-fired powerproduction is most likely in the countries that were analysed. CO2 emissionsfrom this additional electricity production in the EU fall under the EU ETS cap,which wi ll ensure, in pr inciple, that any increase in emissions is balanced outby reductions elsewhere1.

In the coming decades, an increasing share of renewable must-run electricityproducti on from wind or solar energy will require more flexibilit y in demandand in power production from the other sources. Gas-fired production, pump-storage hydro and interconnection could be used for this, as could EV andPHEV batteries if used for energy storage in times of excess renewable energysupply. This requires smart meter ing/ smart storage technology, combined wit hdemand side management, which is currentl y under development.

Policy instruments: how can the green opportunities be harvested?Policies could be implemented t o ensure that t he addit ional electr icit yproduction for these vehicles is 100%green. If that is the aim, the best policyoption is nat ional regulation t o ensure that renewable electr icit y t argets areincreased by the addit ional amount of electricit y consumption from EVs andPHEVs.

Policies aimed at promoting the voluntary purchase of green electricity byelectric car owners will also be useful and will help clear the way for moreambit ious policies. For example, governments or car dealers can promote t hevoluntary purchase of green elect ricit y by electr ic car owners while electr icit y

suppliers, local governments and companies that own and operate chargingpoints can ensure that renewable electricity is used for the charging points forthese cars. National governments could support these developments, forexample t hrough f iscal poli cies.

1Increasing electri city demand from transport wil l have an upward ef fect on the CO2 price inthe ETS. This effect has not been studied furt her in t his report , but i s expected to r emainsmall in the coming decade as the addit ional electr icit y demand will be limit ed.


7/86


Under the current EU regulation on CO2 from cars, an increase in electricvehicle sales will effectively result in less stringent standards for conventionalcars. This cancels out the potentially positive impact of electric cars on CO2emissions and oil consumption in t ransport . The regulat ion should be improvedby eliminating super credits and the practice of zero counting for electricvehicles.

In addition, the Renewable Energy Directive (RED) could be further improved

so that actual data is reported on renewable electricity used for vehiclecharging. In the FQD and regulation on CO2 and cars, more realisticmethodologies should be implemented to take into account the actual energyuse and the CO2 emissions of elect ricit y used in these vehicles. This requiresaccurate metering, which is also an important aspect to ensure any futureregulation of electri city and t o provide an opportunity for demand sidemanagement.

An import ant i ssue for further research and development at both t he EU andnational level is the potent ial, feasibi li t y and cost of using EV and PHEVbatteries renewable energy storage in the longer term. The appropriatetechnology, inf rast ructure and standards need to be developed in t he coming

years to ensure that they are implemented and fully operational as the shareof variable renewable energy supply increases. This would, among otherthings, allow active management on the demand side, which is set t o becomean important ingredient in a future electri city system.


8/86



9/86


1 Introduction1.1 Background

Electrif ication of road transport will be the solution to many problems relatedto both the transport and the power sector. This is the claim being made bymany car manufacturers and power companies, scientists and governmentagencies. They argue that electrification can: Greatly increase the efficiency of vehicles and thus reduce their fuel

(energy) use. Reduce CO2 emissions, depending on the carbon intensit y of the charged

electricity. Facilitate and enable the growth of renewable energy through the use of

vehicle bat teries as power storage devices, supplying variable energy fromrenewable energy sources, such as wind and solar, and feeding this back tothe grid when supply is low.

Offer greater diversification of energy sources and hence increase energysecurity.

Allow the road transport sector to access the full range of renewableenergy sources, beyond liquid and gaseous fuels derived from biomass.

Thereby circumvent problems linked t o unsustainable biofuels, which cancreate environmental and socio-economic problems.

Help enhance local air quality and reduce noise problems.Electric and plug-in vehicles are more energy efficient, less polluting andenable the use of many forms of different primary energy sources, includingrenewables. As such, t hey may provide a very signif icant contr ibut ion t o

sustainable t ransport in t he medium term and long term. However, some ofthe claims are rather unrealistic under current conditions in the transport andelectri city market . Furthermore, electri c cars can only at best represent partof a solution to climate emissions of transport, the need to implement a largerange of other effective greenhouse gas reduction measures in this sectorremains.

In this report , we focus in part icular on an assessment of one of the claimslisted above, namely that electrification will facilitate the growth ofrenewable energy. Increasing the electricit y demand, especially overnightwhen car owners will tend to plug in their vehicles to recharge them, may infact increase the overall (base-load) electricity demand which, at the

moment, consists mainly of coal and nuclear-based energy. However,governments have the opportunity to put policies in place to prevent this fromhappening.

T&E, Friends of t he Eart h Europe and Greenpeace European Unit have joint lycommissioned this study. It s main aim is to look int o the means to realise thefull potential of electric cars on the growth of renewable energy in Europe.The study aims to analyse the potential impact of electrification of roadt ransport on EU power product ion and to develop poli cy recommendations toensure that this development will lead to growth of renewable energy inEurope.


10/86


1.2 Aim and scope of this studyThe objective of this study is to establish regulatory options for the EU toensure that climate policies in road t ransport result in a push for electri cityfrom renewable sources rather than coal and nuclear or unsustainablebiofuels. In other words, these options should aim to ensure that electricvehicles and plug-in hybrids can make a maximum contr ibut ion t o overallgreenhouse gas reductions and sustainable transport.

The geographical scope of this study is the EU and its member states and itsmain focus is on the period from now until 2020. However, we will provideelectri c vehicle scenarios unt il 2030 to il lust rate the potential fut ure growth ofthe electricity demand for these vehicles.

It should be noted that the study focuses on greenhouse gas emissions only.While air quality and noise are subjects not included in this study, they mightstill be important in the overall assessment of environmental effects2.

1.3 This reportIn the next chapter, we will first provide some background information on theEU policies relevant to this study. Chapter 3 describes the possible impact ofthe introduction of electric vehicles on the transport sector and explores anumber of scenarios for the market introduction and resulting electricitydemand of these vehicles. Chapter 4 then assesses the effects of these cars onthe European power supply sector under current policies. Three case studies(France, Germany and the UK) are used for this analysis. Chapter 5 identifiesthe potential policy instruments with which the EU and member states canensure that the electricity needed for these vehicles is produced withrenewable energy sources. Both macro and micro policies are addressed andcompared. The final chapter then provides conclusions and recommendations.

2 While direct emissions from electric cars are zero, there are still CO2 emissions from theelectricity production.


11/86


2 Relevant policy background2.1 Introduction

Both the EU transport and vehicle market and the power sector are regulatedby EU policies to some extent: EU policies exist for CO2 emissions of passengercars; targets have been set for t he renewable energy share in both thetransport sector and for overall energy use; and the power sector is included inthe EU Emission Trading System that puts a cap on the total CO2 emissions ofthe sectors involved. In addit ion, more overarching CO2 policies are in placesuch as the 20%GHG emissions reduction target for 2020 (compared to 1990emission levels) and the EU ef fort -sharing agreement that sets national targetsfor GHG reductions in non-ETS sectors. These policies all have a role inst imulati ng and creating the conditi ons for road t ransport electri fi cat ion. Theymay also provide the means to ensure t hat these developments wil l besustainable and lead t o maximum GHG reduct ions in the future.

Below is a brief overview of the EU policies directly relevant to the topicsaddressed in this report. As electrification impacts on two sectors that used tobe treated quit e separately, namely the transport and the elect ricit y sector,policies for both sectors are included.

2.1.1 Relevant t ransport policiesAs the development of electric cars has only very recent ly boomed (again, asthere have been various attempt to further develop them over the pastcentury, but wi th very limit ed success), they are only brief ly mentioned in therecent t ransport- related directi ves.

In brief, the relevant part s of t he directives aimed at t ransport are thefollowing (from CE, 2009).

Renewable Energy Directive (RED) (EC, 2009c)This directi ve defines a target for t he renewable energy share in t he EUmember states by 2020, and a separate target for use of renewable energy inthe transport sector. The key issues for this study are the following: A target of 10%renewable energy in t ransport by 20203. Sustainability criteria for biofuels are provided, including a minimum GHG

reduction requirement (and a methodology to calculate the reduction),currently excluding indirect land use change effects.

Double count ing of biofuels from waste and residues for t he 10%transporttarget. The cont ribut ion of renewable elect ricit y as calculated f rom:

a The total elect ricit y use in t ransport. Andb The average renewable electricity share in either the member state or

in the EU.

3 The directive defines the target as 10%of the fuel used in t he roadt ransport sector.However, renewable energy use in other modes may also be counted towards this target.


12/86


However, the Directi ve also states (in Art . 3(4)) that by 31 December 2011the Commission will present a proposal permitting all the electricityoriginating from renewable sources used to power all types of electricvehicles to be counted toward t he target, subject to cert ain conditi ons.

Renewable electricity in road transport is multiplied by 2.5 for the 10%transport target (this applies only to renewables used in road transport,not in rail transport).NB: This double and 2.5x counti ng applies only t o the 10%transport target ;

there is no double counting for the overall 20%renewable energy target(see below).

Member states now have to implement this legislation in national policiesand define act ion plans by 30 June 2010 to meet the targets.

Revised Fuel Quality Directive (FQD) (EC, 2009b) A reduction of 6%from well-to-wheel greenhouse gas emissions of

transport fuels between 2010 and 2020, compared to the EU-average levelof life-cycle GHG emissions per unit of energy from fossil fuels in 2010.According to the directive, these reductions should be obtained throughthe use of biofuels, alternative fuels and reductions in flaring and ventingat production sites. However, the methodology for accounting for them is

yet t o be determined. An additional 4%GHG emissions reduction is voluntary, where 2%is

foreseen to be obtained through the use of environmentally-friendlycarbon capture and storage technologies and electr ic vehicles, whil e theadditional 2%reduction can be obtained through the purchase of creditsunder the Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol. Theseadditional reductions are not currently binding, but this may change afterthe reviews in 2012 and 2014.

The methodology to determine the GHG emissions of biofuels and electrictransport should be in line with that of the RED (see above), with theexception that the FQD does not allow double counting of biofuels fromwaste or residues. The detailed methodology to determine GHG emissionsof f ossil fuels and their alternat ives wil l have to be further developed inthe coming years.

Regulation on CO2 from cars (EC, 2009a): Sets an emissions target for car manufacturers: by 2015 the average CO2

emissions of new passenger cars should be no more than 130 g CO2/ km.After 2015 the emissions target will be lowered further to 95 g CO2/ km by2020.

Elect ri c cars count as zero emissions. Electric cars (and any other cars with less than 50 g CO2/ km according to

the type approval tests) get super-credits in the period between 2012 and2016: they may be counted as 3.5 cars in 2012 and 2013, 2.5 cars in 2014,1.5 cars in 2015 and 1 car from 2016 onwards4.

4This means that wi thout super-credits, car manufacturers will receive 130 g/ km credit forevery electric car sold, which they may use to compensate for cars with emissions higher thanthe 130 g/ km target. From 2012 until 2015, this credit will be much higher, as the 130 g/ kmis multiplied by the super-credit factor.


13/86


2.1.2 Relevant policies in t he electr icit y sectorEU Emission Trading System: Sets a cap on the CO2 emissions of the EU power sector and industry for

the period unt il 2020. In the transport sector, electri c rail t ransport i salready included in this system; aviation will also be included in the nearfuture. Emission allowances for the electricity production sector areauct ioned (t his is not the case for al l companies involved in t he ETS; part

of the allowances are allocated for free to industries that operate in aninternat ional compet it ive market ). Trading of allowances is permitt ed.

This cap has been set unti l 2020. In principle, any increase in electr icpower production will thus have to be carbon-free, either throughaddit ional emissions reduct ions elsewhere in t he ETS (e.g., eff iciencyimprovements in the industry or power sector) or through more carbon-free electricity production. Part of the emissions reductions can also beachieved through the CDM (Clean Development Mechanism), which involvesinvestments in proj ects that aim to reduce emissions in developingcountries.

Renewable Energy Directive (RED) (EC, 2009c)

This directive sets a 20%target for the renewable energy share in theoverall energy use in the whole EU by 2020. Separate targets are given foreach member state.

The RED provides a renewable energy target for both the overall energyuse (20%) and the t ransport sector (10%), not for t he electr icit y sector.However, it can be concluded from these two targets that the renewableenergy share in electr ici ty production needs to be about 30-40%in mostcountries if the 20%target is to be met (assuming that the renewableenergy share in transport will not be higher than the 10%target and thatthere is relatively l imit ed scope for renewable heat production).


14/86



15/86


3 Electrif icat ion of road t ransport3.1 Introduction

The focus of this study is on the impact of road transport electrification on theelectri cit y sector, which will be the topic of the next chapters. Nevert heless,we will start here with sketching the impact on the transport sector, as this isthe sector from which the demand for electric cars will coming.

Electric vehicles seem to have some very clear advantages over conventional,combust ion vehicles: their ef f iciency can be higher (in terms of energy use perkilometre), they may improve local air qualit y and their t raff ic noise is limi tedcompared to ICE vehicles. When looking at options for significant GHGreductions in transport and at the development of sustainable transport ingeneral, electric vehicles could play an essential role in the future transportsystems provided t he elect ricit y sources are low carbon.

However, at t he moment their costs are st il l high, t heir dri ving range is limit ed(note that this is only t rue for EVs; PHEVs wil l have conventi onal drivingranges), the charging infrastructure that would allow car owners to charge atconvenient locations is yet to be built and, in view of these shortcomings,consumer confidence st il l has to be gained. So far, the internal combust ionengine is the dominant technology, which has benefit ed f rom economies ofscale and many decades of development. Therefore, large-scale marketintroduction of electric vehicles necessitates an appropriate policy framework.

We start with a brief outline of the current status of the developments and an

est imate of the well -t o-wheel CO2 emissions of electric vehicles, taking intoaccount various forms of electricity production. We then describe thepotential benefits and disadvantages to the transport sector, especiallyrelated to their potential role in GHG reductions and sustainable transport.The last section in this chapter is devoted to the development of threeconcrete scenarios for the introduction of electric and plug-in hybridpassenger cars in the EU. These scenarios will be used in the assessment of thepotential effects on electricity production in the next chapter.

3.2 Technical status and expectationsClearly, the market share of electric vehicles is still very small at the moment,and only a limited number of vehicle types are currently for sale. These aremainly relatively small vehicles typically int ended for urban t ransport, orniche-market vehicles such as sports cars (e.g., the Lotus Elise) or deliveryvans. A number of car manufacturers have announced that they wil l beintroducing family-type electric cars in the next couple of years. However atthe moment, these types of passenger cars are only f or sale in very l imi tednumbers, and are typically conventional ICE passenger cars in which thecustomary engine and drive trains are replaced with electric motors, drivetrains and batteries. Purchase costs of current EVs are therefore still relativelyhigh compared to ICE vehicles of similar size. The same is true for plug-inhybrids, where so far experience has only been gained wit h convert ed


16/86


versions, as the fi rst commerciall y avail able plug-in hybrids are only expectedto be int roduced in the coming years.

In both EV and PHEV developments, there are st il l two signif icant barriers toovercome: cost and life of the battery, and the driving range that can beachieved wit h a batt ery pack of reasonable cost and weight. These are thesame barr iers that hampered earli er at tempts to int roduce EVs in t he 1990s.Despit e signif icant R&D effor ts, government policies (for example t he ZEV

regulation in Calif ornia) and pil ot tests, EVs have never been able to achieve abreakthrough and gain signif icant customer interest and market share. Highcosts and limited performance, in combination with the strong market positionof ICEs, have so far been impenetrable barriers to EVs.

However, the development of new, improved batteries for mobile applicationsand the increasing pressure on car manufacturers to reduce CO2 emissions haverecently caused greater effort from the car industry and associated industriesto develop affordable, high performing EVs and PHEVs. Within the car andbattery industry, those with high expectations have claimed that thetechnology required to make EVs a viable commercial prospect is alreadymature (electr ic motors, drive t rains, high-performance Lit hium-Ion bat teries)

and only a few years of further development are needed to meet carrequirements, increase product ion volumes and reduce the cost . However,those who are more sceptical refer to the technical limitations of thesebatt eries and to the equally high expectat ions in t he 1990s, which were neverfulfilled.

In this report, we will not go into a detailed discussion of the technical status,barriers and developments. We wil l basicall y assume that the development ofEVs and PHEVs will be successful in the next decade and sales will increasefrom 2015 onwards. Because of the current uncert aint ies in developments andmarket uptake, we will look at three diff erent market int roduct ion scenarios,which will be described in section 3.5. Clearly, if the technological and costbreakthrough is not achieved, and EVs and PHEVs do not enter the market onany signif icant scale, the report wil l be irrelevant, as the impact on the powerproducti on will then be negligible.

3.3 CO2 emissions of electric vehiclesOne of the main objectives for wanting to replace the ICEs with EVs or PHEVsis the CO2 reductions that the new technology can achieve. There are tworeasons for this expectation: first, electric motors have much higher efficiencythan internal combust ion engines, leading to less energy use per ki lometre.Second, the CO2 emissions of these cars will decrease further in the future asthe share of renewable energy increases in EU power production. Furthermore,

it is expected that it will be easier to significantly increase the share ofrenewable electricity than the share of renewable transport fuels.

To quantify the well-to-wheel (i.e., life cycle) CO2 emissions of EVs, twoparameters are especially important: The energy use per kilometre (in t erms of kWh/ km). And The CO2 emissions of electricit y production (in g CO2/ kWh).


17/86


Energy use per kilometreThe fi rst parameter, energy use/ km is currently quit e diff icult to est imate, asthere are few EVs in use and there is a lack of reliable and comparable energyuse data. Also, current EVs are of ten relati vely small cars, which cannot simplybe compared to the average ICE vehicle but should instead be compared toequally small ICE cars. Energy use/ km depends on parameters such as theefficiency of the engine and drive train, the vehicle weight and size, tyres,aerodynamics, etc. An important factor in energy efficiency of vehicles is the

weight of the batteries on board, which can typically add 200 kg or more inthe current situation, compared to conventional vehicles of similar size andcomfort. This weight may decrease in the future due to battery developmentsthough this is still uncertain.

Looking at recent li terature, energy use est imates for EVs are found to varybetween 0.11 and 0.20 kWh/ km (EEA, 2009). It was concluded (CE, 2008) thata car similar t o a Volkswagen Golf would use about 0.20 kWh/ km. Anotherstudy (BERR, 2008) assumed a value of 0.16 kWh/ km in t heir calculat ions for2010, 0.13 kWh/ km for 2020 and 0.11 kWh/ km for 2030. A range of0.15-0.20 kWh/ km might t herefore seem to be a reasonable est imate for anaverage all -elect ric passenger car in t he coming years, alt hough t echnological

developments may reduce these values in the longer term.

CO2 emissions per kWh electricity5

CO2 emissions of power production can vary signif icantl y between countries,depending on the fuel mix that is used. For example, CO2 emissions per kWhare highest if lignite or coal is used (due to their high carbon content), lowerfor gas-fired power plants and close to zero for most types of renewableenergy6. CO2 emissions also depend on the type of power product ion, wit hnewer power plants achieving a higher ef f iciency than older ones. Data f or CO2emissions of different power production systems are shown in Figure 1 andFigure 2. Note that the first graph estimates emissions in 2000 from a life-cycle approach (i. e., also including emissions of coal mining and transport ,wind-turbine production, etc.), whereas the second provides estimates of thepower product ion stage only but also incorporates future emissions est imates.

5 One may argue that these emissions are zero because of the ETS cap. However, as theemissions are st il l released (t he ETS only requires that an equal amount of emissions have tobe reduced elsewhere), this is ignored here. This wil l be furt her discussed later in t he report.

6 Note t hat also emissions that have adverse healt h ef fect s such as NOx and PM10 are highest forlignite and coal, l ower for gas and lowest for many types of renewable energy (wit h thepossible exception of biomass that is co-fired in coal power stations).


18/86


Figure 1 Life cycle GHG emissions of various energy systems (2000)

Source: EEA, 2008; based on the GEMIS model, Oeko Institut. The life cycle emissions for nuclear

exclude the back end of t he nuclear fuel cycle - as no valid data are available on the

conditions of future final repositories for spent nuclear fuel. Also, the 'recycling' of PU-239from spent fuel is not included, as no adequate data is available. More details to be found

in EEA, 2008.

Figure 2 Emissions of fossil fuel power product ion

Source: Eurelectric, 2007; The Role of Electricity, A New Path to Secure, Competitive Energy in aCarbon-Constrained World.

CCS = Carbon Capture and Storage, IGCC = Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle,

CCGT = Combined Cycle Gas Turbine.

Quite a large range of estimates exist for the average CO2 emissions per kWhelectricit y in t he EU and depend on various factors, for example, how heatgeneration is incorporated in the calculations. IEA (2006) estimates averageEU-25 emissions to be about 380 g CO2/ kWh; EEA (2009) provides est imat esbetween 410 and 443 gCO2/ kWh (based on EURE, 2008 and EABEV, 2009). Asthe fuel mix varies between EU countries, average CO2 emissions of the power


19/86


sector may also differ significantly between countries: they are higher incountries wit h a large share of coal and/ or li gnite, and lower in count ries wit hhigh shares of gas, nuclear power generation or hydro energy.

It is expected that CO2 emissions from the power sector wil l decrease quitesignificantly in the coming decades as the share of renewable energy increasesin line with the RED directive and the ETS cap is tightened. Estimates for 2030result in about 130 g CO2/ kWh on average (EEA, 2009, based on EURE, 2008).

CO2 emissions of EVs per kilometreCombining these two data sets results in estimates of CO2 emissions pervehicle kilometre. Results for individual power production routes using currentemissions data and two different assumptions regarding energy use per EVkilometre are shown in Figure 3. Clearly, EV CO2 emissions depend strongly onthe power production route, with emissions of coal power more than twice ashigh as those from gas power. The impact of energy efficiency of the EVsthemselves is also clearly discernible.

When these results are compared to the CO2 emissions of conventional ICEvehicles, it becomes clear that the CO2 emissions of EVs are not always lower

than those of ICEs. The average EU passenger car current ly emits about 184 gCO2/ km from well -t o-wheel (160 g/ km direct emissions and about 15%indirectemissions due to oi l production and ref ining). Direct car emissions wil l have tobe reduced t o 130 g/ km by 2015 and to 95 g/ km by 2020. The emissions fromEVs charged from lignite-fired power production are more than or equal to theemissions from the current average ICE (depending on the energy efficiency ofthe EV). The data on coal power production are somewhat inconclusive.Gas-f ired power production seems to score better, as wil l, of course,renewable energy (not included in Figure 3).

Figure 3 CO2 emissions per km (well -to-wheel) for various fossil fuel energy sources, w it h t wo valuesfor EV average energy use

0 50 100 150 200 250

GEMIS 2000,

coal

GEMIS 2000,

gas

Eurelectric

2005, hard coal

Eurelectric

2005, lignite

Eurelectric

2005, IGCC

Eurelectric

2005, CCGT

g CO2/ km

0.15 kWh/ km

0.20 kWh/ km

Source: Electricity emissions data from Eurelectric (2008) and EEA (2008), EV energy consumption

data own estimates. NB: Data include indirect emissions; an estimate of 5%is assumed for

the Eurelectr ic data.


20/86


Results for CO2 emissions of EVs powered by the averageEU electricity mix areshown in Figure 4. Both EV energy efficiency and CO2 emissions of powerproduction are assumed to improve over time, in line with the BERR (2008) andEurelectric (2008) studies. For comparison, the average CO2 emissions of ICEsare indicated as well, assuming that these follow the emissions targets for theregulation on CO2 from cars until 2020 (no targets are defined yet for theperiod after 2020). With these assumptions on energy efficiency per kilometreand CO2 emissions per kWh, EVs would clearly emit much less CO2 than current

new passenger cars.

Figure 4 Comparison of average well -t o-wheel CO2 emissions of ICEs wit h t hose of EVs powered by t heaverage EU electricity mix

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

gCO2/km

EV: Average EU mix,

LCA

ICE

NB: Data include indirect emissions; an est imate of 5%was assumed for electr ici ty and 15%forICE fuels.

See chapter 4 for further discussion on the type of power production that willactually be used to charge the EV batteries in various EU countries.

3.3.1 Well-to-wheel energy eff iciency compari son of EVs with ICEsAs EVs can contribute to the policy goals for CO2 emissions, CO2 should be oneof the primary indicators for EV assessment. However, as low-carbon energyproduction can be expected to be scarce for at least several decades, t rulygreen elect ric cars should also have a high energy eff iciency, i. e., they shoulduse the primary energy eff icientl y. This will be beneficial in terms of bothenergy cost and environmental impact .

For an honest comparison of EV eff iciency compared to that of conventionalvehicles, one should consider the efficiency factors from a well-to-wheelperspect ive rather t han tank-to-wheel , beginning wit h the recovery ofnatural resources and ending with the transformation of electri city into kineticenergy by the electric drive train. This analysis should also include emissionsfrom product ion and the scrapping phase of the vehicle and bat teries. Eachnode in the line has its own efficiency rate, with some characterised by a highvariance. The literature review shows that studies have used different rates


21/86


and calculation models; for that reason underlying calculations are onlyindicative and based on assumptions from other reports.In the well-t o-tank analysis of EV use, the fol lowing nodes can be ident if ied: Recovery of natural resources (for f ossil fuels or nuclear energy). Electr icit y production. Grid t ransportat ion.Recovery of natural resources and grid transportation can vary, depending on

the origin of the energy. On average, they have a steady efficiency rate ofabout 92%(WWF, 2008; SenterNovem, 2006).

Efficiency of electricity production also varies. Looking at the Dutch fossil fuelelectricity production case, rates vary from 39%for coal-powered plants to43%for natural gas powered plants, with an average of 42%for the period1998-2004 (ECN, 2005). Potential f uture higher eff iciency rates can be found inthe different modes of electricity production, for example, in NGCC (NaturalGas Combined Cycle) powered plants that can reach an efficiency rate of morethan 58%(ECN, 2005). Coal-fired power plants have an efficiency rate ofbetween 36 and 44%, where t he newer plants are in the higher range of theefficiency scores.

Average rates are less affected by ext remes and, thus, are not expected torise by more than a few percent in the future (SenterNovem, 2006). Anindicat ive fi gure for t he well-t o-tank eff iciency is thus 0.92 x 0.42 = 38%.

Battery charging, battery storage, transmission, electric resistance and theelectric motor all have their impact on the total tank-to-wheel efficiency. Theelectromotor reaches an efficiency of 90%and together the tank-to-wheelefficiency is about 6580%(WWF, 2008; Deutsche Bank, 2008; EC, 2008).Therefore, t he well-to-wheel eff iciency varies from 25 to 30%.

The well -t o-tank eff iciency of conventional ICE vehicles is high at about 83%(WWF, 2008; EC, 2008). However, in the combustion process most energy isturned int o heat ; only 1520%is t ransformed int o moti ve power (WWF, 2008;Deutsche Bank, 2008; personal communication with TNO). An additional smallamount of energy is turned into heat due to the fr ict ion of moving part sbetween the engine and the wheels. The well-to-wheel efficiency for the ICEis therefore 12 t o 17%.

Table 1 Current fuel chain eff iciency rat es for ICEVs and EVs

ICEV EV

Well-to-tank 83% 38%

Tank-to-wheel 1520% 65-80%

Well-to-wheel 1217% 25-30%

Clearly, the overall result s show that EVs are current ly almost twice aseff icient as ICEVs, from a well -t o-wheel perspecti ve.

However, these data are likely to change in the future. The tank-to-wheelefficiency of ICEs is expected to increase in the coming years as the carmanufacturers will reduce fuel consumption to meet future CO2 standards. Atthe same time, electric vehicles will also become more energy efficient.Electricity production based on fossil sources is also expected to become moreenergy eff icient, as we see ongoing improvements in power production


22/86


technology. Furthermore, the renewable energy share will increase, which willboost the overall environmental performance of EVs.

3.4 Potent ial eff ects on the t ransport sectorAs stated earlier, electric vehicles have significant potential for achievingsignificant GHG reductions in the transport sector and, in general, for making

transport more sustainable (King, 2007).

Compared to current engine technology, battery electric drive trains have thefoll owing benefi ts:1. They have the potential for higher efficiency than combustion engines,

i.e., an electric engine requires less energy input for the same energyoutput, even when electricity production is included. This results in lessprimary energy use per km, as shown in the previous paragraph7.

2. These vehicles provide the opportunity to use any renewable energy sourcefor transport whereas conventional engines need liquid or gaseous fuels. Inpractice, this means that to be able to drive on renewable sources,conventional engines require biofuels or biogas8. The renewable energy

share can therefore be increased much faster in EVs than in ICEs. In viewof the current debate on GHG reductions from t he use of biofuels, andespecially the changes being effected in land use, other renewable fuelopti ons are necessary to decarbonise t ransport in t he fut ure as evidence isincreasing that biofuels will always remain a scarce resource. Note t hatthe biomass-electr icit y-vehicle route is typically more eff icient than thebiomass-biofuel-vehicle route in terms of GHG savings and km per hectareof land use (Scope, 2009).

3. If the elect rici ty is produced from renewable energy or relativelylow-carbon energy sources such as gas, the wel l- to-wheel GHG emissions ofEVs and PHEVs are (much) lower than those of comparable vehicles withcombustion engines running on fossil fuels. The literature suggests thatGHG emissions of electric vehicles are lower than those of comparablecombustion engine vehicles, if the GHG emissions of the average EUelectricity mix is assumed (see section 3.3 or, e.g., BERR, 2008;CE, 2008).

4. The electricity produced for these vehicles is automatically covered byEU ETS, which ensures that any CO2 emissions caused by this means ofelectricity production are compensated with reduced CO2 emissionselsewhere in the ETS. This assumes that the ETS emissions cap is notextended as a reaction to the additional electricity demand. This scenariois unlikely to happen in the next ten years, as the ETS caps have been setuntil 2020, and this additional demand would be low.

5. Electr if ication will lead to reduced oil demand and diversif ication ofenergy sources, thereby improving security of energy supply.

6. EVs and PHEVs driving on batteries have no direct vehicle emissions andproduce much less noise than conventional vehicles. This can clearlybenefit local air qualit y and reduce noise pollut ion, potentiall y result ing insignif icant healt h benefit s. Note t hat the net air quali ty benefit s will besmaller as the emissions of elect ricit y production may well go up,depending on the type of producti on. In addit ion, air quali t y benefit s at

7The efficiency of EVs is also expected to increase (see insertion above). This may reduce thebenefi ts, but i t is unlikely t hat ICEVs will ever be able t o catch up.

8 Hydrogen might also be an option in the future and is being demonstrated and tested invarious demonst rat ion projects worldwide. However, the costs are stil l a large obstacle tofurt her deployment, especiall y for t he hydrogen infrast ructure.


23/86


vehicle level are likely to diminish in the coming decade, as the regulationfor vehicle emissions (t he Euro-classes) i s expected t o be furt her t ightenedin the future. This will lead to considerable reductions in emissions forconventional engines.

Clearly, the type of electricity production used to power the vehicles has astrong impact on the environmental impact of EVs and PHEVs. Anotherimportant factor is the potential effect of EVs and PHEVs on the totalt ransport volume, i. e., on the kilometres driven.

Compared to conventional cars, the current cost structure of these vehiclesresult s in higher purchase costs, due to t he high cost of bat teries, and lowerdriving costs, due to the lower tax on electricity and higher energy efficiency.This may lead to an increase in mileage, especially if driving ranges areimproved in t he fut ure. This would t hen result in an increase in energy use andthus greenhouse gas emissions.

In the future, other business models might lead to other cost structures,focusing more on the cost of car ownership than on the car purchase cost(BERR, 2008). For example, car purchase costs will go down and driving costswill go up if bat teries are leased and paid per kilometre or if batteries are paid

per charging cycle, for example when exchanged at a batt ery swapping station(as in the Better Place project).

Depending on the cost st ructure and government policies, there might also bea risk that electri c cars wil l be addit ional t o, rather than a replacement for,conventional cars. This may happen, for example, if their range remainslimited but they get fi nancial or other benefit s, such as free parking in citycentres, reduced congestion charges, access to urban restriction zones, etc.This may then lead to a potent ial increase in t otal demand for cars and cartransport.

To summarise, electrification of road transport using EVs and PHEVs could be avery signif icant step towards future sustainable t ransport , mainly because ofthe much higher efficiency of these vehicles and the potential to use a largevariety of renewable energy sources. However, the actual benefi ts achievedwith this technology depend strongly on the type of electricity production usedas well as on consumer behaviour. This last point relates to t he cost st ructureof these vehicles and the quest ion whether t hey may lead t o an increase in carkilometres compared to conventional vehicles9.

3.5 Scenarios for electr if ication of road t ransportAs concluded in section 3.2, the market potential and future development ofelectric cars is currently uncertain. To address this uncertainty in our analysis

of t he impact on the electri cit y sector, three dif ferent scenarios were createdbased on the literature and expert opinions. The moderate/medium uptake scenario this assumes a relatively modest

development of EVs and PHEVs. The fast uptake scenario assuming that electrification is successful in

the coming decade, and especially that plug-in hybrid vehicles (PHEVs)achieve a signif icant market share in new vehicle sales in the period up t o2020.

9 As this effect is st ill highly uncertain, it is not t aken int o account in t he scenarios developedin t he foll owing paragraph.


24/86


The ultra-fast EV scenario a scenario that assumes a very high uptake ofelect ric vehicles in t he coming decade.

Note that these scenarios are purely hypotheti cal and are int ended only as abasis for the analysis of the potential impact on the power sector. Moredetai led scenarios might be developed if the drivers and indust rydevelopments were analysed in more detail.

The moderate/medium uptake scenario is based on t he business as usualscenario in BERR (2008) describing the potential uptake of EVs in Britain,which has been extrapolated to the rest of the EU. As the number of EVs inEurope is currently very low, the number of EVs in 2010 has been reduced tozero. This scenario then assumes that EVs have a 0.4%share of total passengercar vehicles sales in 2020, resulting in about 0.5 million EVs on the road in theEU in that year. PHEVs are assumed to be somewhat more successful, reachinga 1.3%share in sales by 2020, amounting to about 1.5 mil li on vehicles in t heEU in 2020.

The fast uptake scenario is similar in ambition to the high-range scenario fromBERR (2008), extrapolated to the EU but wit h a relati vely large market share

for t he plug-in hybrids. The reason for this assumption is that these vehiclesmight be more att ract ive t o consumers as they are less limit ed in range.

This scenario assumes that EVs have an 11%share of total passenger carsvehicles sales by 2020, resulting in almost 5 million EVs on the road in the EUin that year. PHEVs are assumed to be even more successful, reaching a 24%share in sales by 2020, amounting to about 15 million vehicles in the EU in2020. Clearly, as there are only a few EVs and no PHEVs on the market at themoment, this scenario assumes a very fast uptake (and thus an increase inproducti on/ availabilit y) of these new t echnologies.

Finally, the ult ra-fast EV uptake scenario is based on the ambitious vision ofEVs in SN&M (2009), extrapolated to the EU. In this scenario the developmentof EVs takes off from the year 2010 and by 2020 production is almost at parwit h the production of f ossil fuel vehicles. In addit ion, PHEVs have gained ashare of the car market.This scenario assumes that EVs have a very impressive 40%share of totalpassenger car vehicles sales in 2020, resulting in almost 25 million EVs on theroad in the EU in that year. PHEVs are assumed to be somewhat lesssuccessful, reaching a 7%share in sales by 2020, amounting to about5.5 million vehicles in the EU in 2020.

Figure 5 provides an overview of the uptake of EVs and PHEVs in the EU carfleet for these scenarios up to 2020. Extending these scenarios beyond 2020 to2030 results in the numbers shown in Figure 6. Clearly, these are only shown

for indicati ve purposes, as there is no basis yet to make a rel iable or well -founded future projection, considering the current penetration of these newtechnologies in t he fleet .


25/86


Figure 5 Total number of EVs and PHEVs in the EU car fleet by 2020 in the three scenarios (mil li onvehicles)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2005 2010 2015 2020

numberofEVsandPHEVsinthe

EU(million)

moderate/ medium

uptake: PHEV

moderate/ medium

uptake: EVfast uptake: PHEV

fast uptake: EV

ultra-fast uptake: PHEV

ultra-fast uptake: EV

Figure 6 Total number of EVs and PHEVs in the EU car fleet i n the thr ee scenarios for t he period up to2030 (mill ion vehicles)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

numberofEVsandPHEVsint

heEU(million)

moderate/ medium

uptake: PHEV

moderate/ medium

uptake: EV

fast uptake: PHEV

fast uptake: EV

ultra-fast uptake: PHEV

ultra-fast uptake: EV

It should be noted that bot h the fast upt ake and the ult ra-fast uptakescenario would require a great deal of eff ort on the part of governments andthe car indust ry, as wel l as breakthroughs in the technology and cost ofbatteries.


26/86


For t hese three scenarios the total energy used by electri f ied vehicles wascalculated10. To facilitate a more detailed calculation the followingassumptions were made: Both electric cars (EV) and plug-in hybrid vehicles (PHEV) will be

developed and obtain a share of the transport market. EVs are assumed to have an annual mileage of 8,640 km (about 80%of that

of petrol cars), while petrol and diesel PHEVs have mileages of about10,800 and 15,200 km/ year respectively.

Both PHEVs using petrol and diesel will be developed. PHEVs using petrolwill run on electricity for 80%of their total mileage while PHEVs usingdiesel will be used mainly for long-distance travel and will only useelect ricit y for 50%of t heir mileage. These assumptions are based on ownest imates, as no reliable data have been found in the li terature (and PHEVsare not yet in use on a signif icant scale).

PHEVs on petrol will be more common than PHEVs on diesel 11. Elect ri c cars are assumed to consume 0.72 MJ/ km (0.2 kWh/ km, based on

data in CE, 2008). This value seems to be quite a conservative estimate. The PHEVs are assumed to be 20%more efficient than their conventional

counter parts. PHEVs will be less efficient than EVs due to design constraints and the

double drive t rain. The total kilometres driven by car in the EU will not be affected by the

int roduct ion of EVs and PHEVs. The impact of electric light goods vehicles will be very small. While this

may not be realistic, scenarios with electric vans would not lead to verydifferent results than the ones used here.

The overall prognosis on the number of vehicles and vehicle kilometres aretaken from TREMOVE v. 2.7b. This is used in conjunction with annual salesdata and a vehicle i nt roduction model t o calculate t he number of EVs andPHEVs and their annual mileage.

The tot al electr icit y demand of these vehicles in the various scenarios is shown

in Table 2. For comparison, t he total f inal electr icit y consumpt ion of t heEU-27 in 2006 was 2,813,437 GWh. Clearly, compared to the current overallconsumption, t he addit ional energy demand of these vehicles remains quit elimit ed in 2020, even in t he ambit ious scenarios: about 2.9 and 2.6%in the fastuptake and ult ra-fast EV scenarios respecti vely. In the medium/ moderateuptake scenario, t he addit ional demand is less than 0.3%of currentconsumption. The two fast uptake scenarios illustrate that not only thenumber of vehicles is relevant, but also the mileage and energy efficiency: thetotal number of electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles is lower in the fast uptakescenario than in the ultra-fast uptake scenario (20 million versus 31 millionvehicles), but the electricity use is higher in the first case. This is due to theassumptions that annual mileage for EVs is relat ively l ow in t he ult ra-fastscenario, and that the PHEVs drive on electric power for a relatively large

share of their mileage.

10 Note that energy use in the production phase of the vehicles and batteries is not included.The data given here are only for vehicle use.

11This assumpti on is based on t he expectat ion t hat the advantages of PHEVs compared toconventional cars (in terms of cost and environmental impact) are expected to be highest incars wit h limit ed mileage - t he higher the share of electri c driving in the overall car use, t hehigher the efficiency gains and energy cost reductions.


27/86


Table 2 Electr icit y needed for electr ic passenger car tr ansport in the EU-27 in 2020

Energy needed Number of vehicles (mil li ons)

PJ GWh EV PHEV

Medium/ moderate

uptake scenario

30 8,333 0.5 1.5

Fast uptake scenari o 296 82,167 5 15

Ultra-fast EV

scenario

263 72,972 25 6

As stated earlier, these are worst case scenarios; we aim to assess thepotential impact of these developments, covering the whole potential playingfield.

This share will increase (much) further in the period after 2020, if theelectrification of transport continues and the energy consumption of thesevehicles is not drastically reduced. Using the same assumptions as listed above(i. e., not assuming eff iciency improvements or changes in mileage) and usingthe vehicle uptake data shown in Figure 6, these scenarios would lead to anelectricity demand in 2030 of about 350 PJ, 900 PJ and 1,800 PJ respectively

clearly a much more substantial demand (318%of the 2006 production).

3.6 Potential indirect effects in the sectorIn these scenarios, we have assumed that the total vehicle ki lometres driven inthe EU in 2020 are not affected by the market introduction of EV and PHEVand that the fuel efficiency and annual mileage of conventional vehicles donot change either. However, under current policies these assumptions may besomewhat optimistic for a number of reasons: the impact of a different coststructure on car use, potential increases of car ownership, and the potentialimpact on the fuel efficiency of conventional cars due to the current

regulation on CO2 from cars.

First, electri fi cat ion may impact on the cost st ructure of driving cars.Depending on the business model used for these cars, fixed vehicle costs suchas purchase cost may become (much) higher, while variable costs would be(much) lower - at current taxation levels. According to standard economictheory (backed up by empirical evidence), lower variable costs would result inan increase in total kilometres driven12. This eff ect may be reduced if businessmodels are implemented that spread out at least part of the battery cost overits lifetime. For example, car buyers might choose to lease or rent thebatteries, paying for them per kilometre, per kWh or per charging cycle. Analternati ve business model is one that is planned for use in the Better Placeproject (www.bet terplace.com), where car drivers generally charge their ownbatteries, but where a lease and subscription system is set up where they canalso exchange their depleted batteries for full ones at dedicated stations. Thebusiness model is based on a leasing scheme for the batteries, in combinationwit h a subscript ion model where the costs depend on t ravel distances.

Second, there is some concern that electric vehicles would be additional tothe existing car fleet, rather than replacing conventional cars. This concern ismainly due to various government incentives provided by an increasing number

12 Despite their potentiall y limited range, EVs may then be used for short t rips that are nowmade on foot or by bicycle, f or example.


28/86


of countries, such as cheap or free parking, reduced road charges, access toenvironmental zones, etc.

Third, elect ric cars have a special status under t he current regulation on CO2from cars, as was shown in section 2.1.1. Electric vehicles count here aszero-emissions vehicles, thereby allowing the auto manufacturers to sell carsthat are less fuel-efficient if they are also selling EVs, compared to thesituation without EVs. The penetration of EVs and PHEVs in the EU fleet could

then actually increase total WTW emissions, since the CO2 emissions of EVs arenot zero in reality, as shown earlier. These effects would be exacerbated ifthe super-credit s, which currentl y run out aft er 2015, were to be continued to2020.

In the longer term, on the other hand, one can envisage that the regulationwill be modified to take account of new technologies. In that case, sales ofEVs and PHEVs will help manufacturers achieve their targets without reducingthe effectiveness of the CO2 regulation.

3.7 Effects of electric vehicles on oil and biofuel consumptionOne would expect that, in principle, if electric vehicles replace conventionalICE vehicles, their introduction would reduce the consumption of liquid (andgaseous) transport fuels, i.e., petrol, diesel and biofuels. However, as thecurrent regulation on CO2 from cars (EC, 2009a) includes EVs as zero-emissionscars, oil consumption may in fact not be reduced - as explained in secti on2.1.1 - f uel consumption of convent ional cars may then increase. Ifsuper-credits apply, which is the case between 2012 and 2015, oil consumptionis even likely to increase, compared to a scenario without any electricvehicles. However, as part of the electricity used will be counted towards theRED target (at a rate of 2.5-t imes) biofuelconsumption would decrease due toEVs.

The impact of this poli cy on oil consumption and CO2 emissions of passengercars is illustrated in Figure 7. Here, the share of EVs in EU passenger car salesis varied, and the impact of EV sales on the emissions of these new EV cars isshown. In addition, results are shown for different levels of super-credits.These result s assume that car manufacturers use t he credit s they receive fromelect ric cars to the full, i.e., t hat if there is a 130 g/ km target, it would bemet in all electric vehicle scenarios. This is thus a worst-case scenario.

In reali ty, we would not expect that the emissions of ICEs would i ncreasecompared to those of current cars, as more fuel efficient ICE technology isclearly being developed and implemented because of the fuel efficiency targetwhich is now in pl ace. However, it does seem reasonable t o conclude that t he

ICE fuel ef f iciency improvements may be slower wit h EVs than wit hout them.

Furt hermore, i t is assumed here t hat the number of cars and annual mileageare independent of the share of electric vehicles and that there is nodifference in the annual mileage for ICEs and EVs13.

As can be seen in the graph, with high super-credits, ICE fuel use for new carsmay increase significantly if the market share of EVs is increased. Withoutsuper-credits, ICE fuel use will remain constant. Note that these results imply

13 If these ICEs have more annual mileage than EVs (which is likely due to the limited range ofEVs), the oil consumption would actually increase as a result.


29/86


that t otal energy use in t ransport wil l increase in al l cases, as this graph doesnot include the electricity used for EVs.

Figure 7 The effect of an increasing share of EVs in passenger car sales on oil consumpt ion of passengercars sold (worst-case scenario under the current regulation on CO2 from cars)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0% 5% 10% 15%

EV share in new passenger car sales

O

ilconsumptionandrelatedCO2emission

s

(index,noEV=100)

without super-credits

super-credit = 1,5

super-credit = 2,5

super-credit = 3,5

The reason for this result is that the sales of EVs all ow car manufacturers toincrease t he CO2 emissions of ICEs that are sold, whilst st il l meeting theemissions targets. This is il lust rated in Figure 8, where the 2020 emissionstarget of 95 g/ km is assumed.

Figure 8 Average emissions of new ICE passenger cars at a target of 95 g/km, wi th diff erent shares ofEVs in passenger car sales (wor st -case scenari o under the current regulat ion on CO2 fr om cars)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

0% 5% 10% 15%


AverageemissionsofnewI

CEs


super-credit = 1,5

super-credit = 2,5

super-credit = 3,5


30/86


Despite expectations that oil consumption will remain constant or increasewit h growth in EV market share, biofuels consumption is likely t o decrease asEV market shares increase if the share of renewable electricity is sufficientlyhigh. Renewable electr ici ty in road t ransport also counts towards the 10%REtarget in 2020, reducing the need for biofuels.

This effect is illust rated in Figure 9, where a renewable electricity share of35%is assumed (the expected EU average in 2020), again using the

assumptions mentioned above. Higher renewable energy share and higher EVshare will lead to lower demand for biofuels.

Figure 9 The effect of an incr easing share of EVs in passenger car sales on biofuel s demand at 35%renewable electricity (under the current regulation on CO2 fr om cars)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0% 5% 10% 15% 20%


Biofuelsconsumpt

ion

(index,noEV=100)


super-credit = 1,5

super-credit = 2,5

super-credit = 3,5

3.8 When will the batteries be charged?As is evident in t he next chapter, it is very relevant for the electr icit y sectorwhether the batteries in the EVs and PHEVs are charged at night, whenelectricity demand is low, or during the day, when it is high. The impact alsodepends on whether charging takes place on weekdays or over the weekend. Italso varies according to the season and from region to region (even locally).

Unfort unately, it is too early to predict exactl y how bat tery charging wil l bedistributed during the day or over the week. This will depend on, for example,the locat ion and availabilit y of public charging points, type of fl eet(individually-owned or shared vehicles, company cars, etc.), whethercompanies wil l provide charging points, how long charging wil l take, andwhether electricity companies provide incentives for charging at specifictimes. These questions have not been answered yet.

In the next chapter we look at two scenarios: one where t he cars are chargedduring the peak hours of the day (08.0020.00 hrs) and one where they arecharged at night (24.0008.00 hrs).


31/86


Smart metering or dedicated battery-charging stations (in combination withbatt ery-swapping stati ons) may allow bat tery charging at hours where t here is,for example, a wind power surplus or a relat ively l ow carbon-power source.However, this opt ion has not been included in t he analysis here as it is not yetcommon practi ce.

3.9 Conclusions: Electrification of road transport There is still a high level of uncertainty regarding the future market

introduction of electric cars and plug-in hybrids as the battery technologyis not yet fully developed for transport applications, and these vehicles arenot yet deployed on a large scale. Quest ions regarding potenti al share inthe car fleet, energy efficiency, charging patterns, annual mileage, costand cost st ructure have not yet been answered.

We have therefore developed three dif ferent scenarios for 2020, usingassumpti ons for t hese variables: a medium/ moderate uptake scenario, afast uptake scenario and an ultra-fast EV scenario. These scenarios resultin an uptake of EVs between 0.525 million and 1.515 million PHEVs by2020. The high est imates may seem unrealistic in view of the current sales

of these vehicle t ypes, but are included as extreme cases for t he sake ofthe analysis in the fol lowing chapters. EVs and, to a lesser extent, PHEVs, have a number of advantages compared

to current car technology based on ICEs. They are more energy efficient. They allow the use of a much larger range of energy sources,

including all types of renewable energy. They enable sustainable and carbon neutral (CO2-free) mobilit y if t hey

are powered by renewable energy sources such as wind, solar andhydro.

They can contribute to urban air quality improvements14 and reducenoise from the transport sector.

Some of these advantages may decrease over time, as ICEs will becomecleaner and more fuel efficient in the future. However, the flexibility ofrenewable energy sources can prove an import ant f eature t hat cancontribute to sustainable mobility and CO2 reductions in the transportsector in t he future.

Depending on the source of electr ici ty generati on and on the energyeff iciency of t he vehicles, power product ion for electri c vehicles could, infact, result in substantial CO2 emissions. For instance, in the case ofelectri city produced by low-eff icient lignite-fi red power plants, CO2emissions from EVs would be higher than those of comparable ICE vehicles.However, this figure represents a maximum level, which is most ly relevantfor countr ies where l ignite power production has a large share(e.g., Germany, Poland and Hungary). Assuming the average EU electricity

mix, CO2 emissions would be about half of that of current conventionalcars again depending on the energy efficiency of the vehicles.

As the power sector is part of the European Emission Trading System (ETS),any additional CO2 emissions resulting from this additional electricitydemand would, in pr inciple, have to be compensated by CO2 reductionselsewhere in the ETS. The impact on the power sector and on the ETS willbe discussed fur ther in t he next chapters.

14 Note t hat t hey may, however, i ncrease emissions of t he electri cit y product ion.


32/86


Compared to current overall consumption, the additional energy demandof these vehicles would remain quite limited in 2020, even in the ambitiousscenarios: about 2.9 and 2.6%in the fast uptake and ultra-fast EV scenariosrespecti vely. In the medium/ moderate uptake scenario, t he addit ionaldemand would be less than 0.3%of current consumption. Demand mayincrease further af ter 2020, depending on the success of this technologyand the ef f iciency of the EVs.


33/86


4 Effects of electric cars on theEuropean power supply sector

4.1 IntroductionIn this chapter we invest igate the possible ef fects of t he growth of elect ricit yconsumption due to a growing number of electric and plug-in electric cars inEurope15 based on current electric vehicle and power sector policies.

The focus is on the short term, 2020, taking into consideration the existinginstalled product ion capacit y for electricit y product ion and developmentsforeseen for the forthcoming years. Based on the analysis we also t ry t oforecast whether, i n the long run (aft er 2020), addit ional power capacit y wil l

need to be built to satisfy additional demand from electric vehicles, anddiscuss what type of power capacity that will be.

The analysis includes cases studies of three EU countries: Germany, the UnitedKingdom and France. These are selected because of their large contr ibut ion t oelect ri cit y consumpt ion on a European level (almost 50%, see Table 3) and alsobecause of the significant differences in the composition of their installedelectri cit y generat ion capacit y and elect ricit y supply.

Table 3 Share of Germany, Unit ed Kingdom and France in total EU-27 gross elect ri cit y product ion(2007)

Countr y Electr icit y producti onTotal EU-27 3.362 TWh/ yr (100%)

Germany 637 TWh/ yr (19%)

UK 396 TWh/ yr (12%)

France 570 TWh/ yr (17%)

Total Germany, UK, France 1.603 TWh/yr (48%)

Source: Eurostat, 2009.

The detailed case study analyses can be found in Annex A (Germany), Annex B(France) and Annex C (Unit ed Kingdom). This chapter only contains the mainresults.

15Besides electr ic cars other ef fects play a role in the development of fut ure electr icit ydemand like a growing number of electric appliances, heat pumps, eco design measures, etc.In this study, however, we will limit the analysis to the expected growth in future electricitydemand attributable to electric vehicles.


34/86


4.2 Developments in the EU electricity production sectorFigure 10 shows the current composit ion of elect ricit y supply in t he EU-27, anddevelopments in the past 15 years. Specific developments for Germany, Franceand the UK are shown in the Annexes.

Figure 10 Gross electr icit y production (in TWh/yr ) by fuel 1990-2006, EU-27

Gross electr icit y producti on by f uel (1990-2006)

0

500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

3.000

3.500

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006

Other fuelsRenewables

OilNatural and derived gas

Coal and lignit e

Nuclear

4%

31%

30%

21%

15%

3%TWh/yr

Source: Capros et al., 2008.

As can be seen, electricity production grew across the EU-27 at an averageannual rate of +1.7%between 1990 and 2006. The largest contributions comefrom coal, gas, nuclear and renewables. The contribution of (natural) gas

increased from approximately 8%in 1990 t il l 21%in 2006. The share ofrenewables consists mainly of hydro power and, to a lesser extent, biomass.The contribution of wind and solar remains limited thus far.

Developments unt il 2020 and 2030It is difficult to forecast developments for the amount of electricityconsumption as well as the composit ion of elect ricit y supply for 2020. Majorfactors inf luencing these developments are given in Table 4.


35/86


Table 4 Factors infl uencing fut ure electr icit y producti on and composit ion of electr icit y supply

Sector Factor

Economy Economic development / growth

Economic recession results in a drop in electricity demand or a

drop in capital available from banks/ investors to invest in new

power generation capacity. Economic growth is the main

driving force for the growth of elect ricit y consumption shown in

Figure 10.

Pri ces of elect ri city/ fuels

Electricity prices have shown large fluctuations in recent years,

due to changes in prices of fuels.

CO2 prices

According to the EU-ETS directive CO2 credit s for electricit y

producers will be auctioned. The CO2 emissions of the electrical

power industry are capped already (EU ETS).

Policy Renewable energy directi ve

Legal t argets for cont ribut ion of renewable energy to total

energy consumption per member state.

EU ETS di rect ive

Caps on total CO2 emissions of large industries, including power

plants (-20%in 2020 vs. 1990); auctioning of CO2 creditsEU policy on energy efficiency

Targets for increasing energy efficiency. Minimum standards for

and labelling of electri cal equipment.

Nati onal pol icies (like f eed in tarif fs, t axes, subsidies, f iscal

stimulation)

Geopolitical factors affecting the future availability of fossil

fuels for the EU member states.

Geopolitical climate negotiations regarding the post-Kyoto

period.

Technical developments Technical and economic development of convent ional and

renewable energy sources.

Development of CO2 capture and storage (CCS).Const ructi on of interconnect ion capacit y.

Storage of electr icit y in general and of renewable electr icit y in

parti cular, and smart metering.

In the study European Energy and Transport; Trends to 2030 - update 2007(European Commission, 2008) prognoses are estimated for the fuel mix offut ure electr icit y producti on. The results from this study were derived usingthe PRIMES model 16. In 2008 the PRIMES model was used to analyse the policypackage on climate change and renewables. In this addit ional study dif ferentscenarios - with or without RES (Renewable Energy Sources) trading, with orwit hout CDM/ JI - were used. In Figure 11 the result s of t he diff erent scenariosare depicted. Note that all scenarios in that study show a growth in electricitydemand.

16The PRIMES model is run by the E3MLab of Nat ional Technical Universit y of Athens (NTUA) andhas been used to quantify the Baseline scenario for all the EU-27 member states up to theyear 2030. PRIMES is a partial equilibrium model of the EU energy system providingproj ecti ons for the medium and long term start ing from 2010 and running up to 2030 withresults for every f if th year. The PRIMES model was complemented by a series of specialisedmodels and databases, including the POLES world energy model and the GEM-E3 macro-economic model .


36/86


Figure 11 Prognoses for t he fuel mix of fut ure gross electr icit y production (EU-27, in TWh/yr )

Gross elektr ici ty generati on by source in TWh (EU-27)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

Baseline

+RES,

+CDM/JI

+RES,

-CDM/JI

-RES,

+CDM/JI

-RES,

-CDM/JI

Baseline

+RES,

+CDM/JI

+RES,

-CDM/JI

-RES,

+CDM/JI

-RES,

-CDM/JI

2020 2030

Other RES

Solar

Wind

Biomass plants

Hydro

Oil

Nat ural and deri ved gas

Coal and lignit e

Nuclear


Baseline: Baseline scenario: the business-as-usual scenario of DG-TREN at end November

2007.

+ RES, +CDM/JI: EC Proposal with CDM and with RES trading: same as +RES, but with possibility

to take emission credits from CDM lowering the carbon value to a uniform price

of 30/ tCO2.

+ RES, -CDM/JI: EC Proposal wi th RES t rading: same as scenario RES, -CDM/ JI, but exchange of

GOs among the member states is allowed, resulting in RES developing

dif ferentl y f rom member state RES obligat ions but overal l RES developing on a

cost-effective basis.

-RES, +CDM/JI: EC Proposal wi th CDM wi thout RES t rading (RSAT-CDM): same as scenario

+RES, -CDM/ JI, but part of emission reducti on can be justi f ied by emission

reduction credits taken from the CDM mechanism lowering the carbon value to a

uniform price of 30/ tCO2.

-RES, -CDM/JI: EC Proposal wi thout RES t rading : scenario corresponding to the effort-sharing

scheme proposed by the European Commission which meets the target

separately in the EU (for the EU ETS, 27 Non ETS and 27 RES targets) and does

not allow exchange of GOs among the member states.

The member states are allowed to meet their targets by buying guarantees oforigin (GOs) for renewable electricity produced in other member states. Thisentails the respective member states reaching a bilateral agreement that theimporting member state is allowed to count the GOs as part of its target whilethe exporting member state is not 17.

Using the CDM flexibil it y mechanism impl ies lower emission reduct ion ef fort sin the EU and lower carbon prices for the ETS as well as the non-ETS sectors ata national level. This will further imply that, in the EU, a lower level of RES isnecessary to meet CO2 reduction targets. As the CDM projects do not counttowards the RED renewable energy targets, addit ional/ specif ic effort s are thennecessary to meet these targets. Generally, there will be weaker incentivesfor structural changes in t he EU energy system, in both the demand and thesupply sectors (Capros et al., 2008).

17 At the moment such bilateral agreements are not yet in place.


37/86


Since t he opport unit ies of RES t rading and CDM/ JI are operat ive, the REStrading and CDM/ JI scenario has been chosen here to est imat e the growt h inrenewables. The est imated gross elect ricit y production in t his scenario i s givenin Figure 12.

Figure 12 Gross electr icit y producti on (in TWh/yr ) by fuel

EU-dir ecti ve + CDM/JI, RES Trade: Gross electr ici ty pr oduct ion by

fuel

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

TWh

Renewables

Oil

Nat ural and der ived gas

Coal and lignite

Nuclear

1 %

21%

19 %

21 %

37 %


As can be seen from the scenario in Figure 12, the share of renewableelectricity is expected to increase to 31%by 2020 and 37%by 2030. To meetthe renewable energytarget of 20%by 2020 the share of renewable electricitywill have to increase to about 35%till 40%by 2020.

4.3 Flexibility of power supply, peak load and base load capacityImportant aspects to consider in relation to the potential of renewable energysupply sources in meeting electricity demand at any given point in time arefl exibilit y and f luctuat ions in power supply.

FlexibilityElectricity consumption fluctuates from second to second, from hour to hourand from day to day. Figure 13 shows a typical electricity demand pattern

(load curve); for details, we refer t o the original publication.


38/86


Figure 13 Typical patt ern load curve (average day)

Load curve (average daily patt ern)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Aver ageWeek

Weekend

GWGW

hours

Source: Entsoe, 2009.

As Figure 13 shows, during an average day hourly electricity consumption(capacity demand) at night is substantially lower than during the day.

If t here is wind energy available this will be the f irst source to meet (partially)electricity demand since wind energy is supply driven (if it is there, it isthere), has zero marginal costs and has priorit y access to t he grid. Theremaining electricity demand has to be met by demand-driven electricitygeneration capacity. The lowest level of this remaining demand is the level forwhich base load will provide the necessary production capacity, that is, theminimum level of demand which wi ll always occur. During peak hours,additional electricity production capacity is needed that can respond quicklyto a sometimes unexpected increase in electr icit y demand. In general, gasturbine power plants (single cycle) can rapidly respond to demand fluctuations

and can even be turned on and off fairly easily, making them very flexibleelectricity production installations. In contrast, coal and nuclear power plants,most frequentl y used for providing base load capacit y, are less f lexible18.

Besides flexibility, so-called merit order is another factor on which thedemand-driven electricity production source depends. The merit order in awell functioning electricity market is defined according to an ascending orderof marginal operating costs of power plants at any point in time. An exampleof a merit order i s shown in Figure 14.

18 Modern types of coal and nuclear power plants are somewhat more flexible than older ones,so when they are already running they can respond more quickly to a change in demand.


39/86


Figure 14 Example of a merit order (Denmark), il lustrati ng which plants produce power at a givenmarket price

The number of hours per year a demand-driven power plant operates

green power for electric cars report 08-02-10

Documents